TC's Refusal to Choose

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I've been taking some time to understand kamelda's next GI post based on the progress made here. In that post, she says such things in response to SRD's last response as:

--- Narrowness and exclusivity can't be got away from by making ethics a personal matter: ultimately everyone still believes that reality -however they define it- is one thing and not any other, and the reality they believe this about is shared by others. If this has any correspondence to the way things are and isn't simply a meaningless subjective process, then reality really is one thing: and some people are mistaken about it. The ending seemed to downplay that aspect of things, to make the dilemma of what we choose less important than an effort that can only (if I've explained at all) reinforce the dilemma; and that seems too easy. ---

Easier than understanding her posts.

But what it says is easier than it looks. She is saying that TC refused to confront the problem of subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity. She says that it is through intersubjective agreement that we find confirmation of subjective reality. And subjective reality says there is only "one thing" and not multiple or contradictory things ("mutual exclusivity," as she said somewhere else).

Whether that's true or not is debatable, so let's just mush on rather than tying this into further knots...

Kamelda seems to be focusing her argument around this statement: "and some people are mistaken about it," meaning "reality." In other words, in cases of conflict between inner and outer reality, outer reality wins through intersubjectivity, and the person's judgment is mistaken rather than reality or the intersubjective agreement.

Now how does that apply to the first Chrons? Her statement only applies to those who have the advantage of intersubjectivity. IOW, there is nobody with whom to compare subjective perceptions about the Land in order to obtain intersubjective agreement and determine its reality. This is something I've asked about before: if only Hile Troy had survived and come back to "reality" so TC could contact him and compare versions of their shared dream. SRD consistently denies us this opportunity in order to reinforce the ambiguity surrounding the Land's reality.

Certainly, the ending only serves to reinforce the dilemma which is really ambiguity, uncertainty. SRD leaves his readers awash in questions. And that, as I have said before, is the point.

And so here is SRD's final response to the kamelda thread:

I write in an effort to encourage my readers to think about questions. And by that measure, your contributions to the GI demonstrate that I've succeeded. In spades. With chocolate frosting. (Mixed metaphor there, but who cares?) Nothing more needs to be said. Certainly there was no need for me to get defensive. <rueful smile>

So what I should have said in response to your first message ("too easy") was not rant rant rant, but rather THANK YOU!

In other words, SRD is not a polemicist, he does not write to provide his readers with answers.

But that's also too easy! The first Chrons at least are directed at polemics; getting people to ask questions is one of the very goals of polemicists - because the very questions themselves are targeted at specific answers that already exist in the polemicist's mind.

And kamelda played right into SRD's polemical hands.

[wayfriend]

"getting people to ask questions is one of the very goals of polemicists" ... ah, but does that really mean that anyone who wants you to ask questions is a polemicist?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"getting people to ask questions is one of the very goals of polemicists" ... ah, but does that really mean that anyone who wants you to ask questions is a polemicist?

Not at all. But since reading SRD's essay on fantasy I've known it for what it was.

[wayfriend]

"getting people to ask questions is one of the very goals of polemicists" ... ah, but does that really mean that anyone who wants you to ask questions is a polemicist?

Not at all. But since reading SRD's essay on fantasy I've known it for what it was.

I've read SRD's essay on fantasy as well, and I have no idea what you are referring to here. Care to spell things out a bit?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"getting people to ask questions is one of the very goals of polemicists" ... ah, but does that really mean that anyone who wants you to ask questions is a polemicist?

Not at all. But since reading SRD's essay on fantasy I've known it for what it was.

I've read SRD's essay on fantasy as well, and I have no idea what you are referring to here. Care to spell things out a bit?

Nowadays, for some reason I take this as an order not a request.

Let's start with this quote from the fantasy essay:

Critics who miss the point of fantasy take a figure like Lord Foul as proof that fantasy is over-simplified escapist fiction. Any personification of evil must over-simplify the nature of evil, if only by suggesting that evil is out there rather than in here. I argue, however, that in fantasy the entire out there, with all its levels and complexities and dimensions, is an externalization - for dramatic purposes - of what is in here.

Putting aside his theory for a minute, SRD is here addressing fantasy critics, particularly those who find it a distasteful genre. But to what end?

SRD asks:

Now. A definition of fantasy brings us back to my first question. Why? Assuming that we've been able to agree on what fantasy is, why do people want to read it?

Ok, but what does this "why" question have to do with my theory that the Chrons are polemical in nature?

Apparently, the techniques and resources of fantasy - magic and personification, for example - attract writers who want to challenge
the void, defy the notion of futility.

Challenging and defying - aren't these notions taken directly from polemics itself? And this not only attracts writers, SRD goes on to explain that it also attracts readers.

This, I think, explains much of the popularity of modern fantasy. After reading all those mainstream novels since 1945, we need to hear affirmative things about being human.

After going over the history of epic literature, SRD states:

He [Tolkien] restored the epic to English literature. Roughly a century after the epic became an impossible literary form, he made it possible to write epics again.
But - a crucial but - he did it by divorcing his work entirely
from the real world, by insisting that there is no connection between the metaphors of fantasy and the facts of the modern reality, by rejecting allegory.

So what is the role SRD is destined to play in this revival of epic fantasy in the modern world such that it can connect back with the world?

Now that the door has been opened, what I want to do is to
bring the epic back into contact with the real world. Putting it
another way, I want to reclaim the epic vision as part of our sense of who we are, as part of what it means to be human.
For that reason, I chose to focus my epic on one "real" human being, Thomas Covenant, a man who personally exemplifies, as dramatically as possible, "The nightmare world, alienation and nausea, the quest for identity, and the [distinctly un-] comic doomsday vision." He is an "Unbeliever" precisely because I wanted to bridge the gap between reality and fantasy: I wanted to take a fantasy-rejecting modern human being and force him to confront all the implications of an epic vision. Epic vision is powerfully seductive - because it is powerfully human - and I
wanted to consider the question of what might happen to a modern man who was seduced by such beauty.

This reveals the esoteric nature or backdrop of the Chrons. Certainly there is an entertaining story about an unusual man caught up in unusual circumstances. But he is also there because SRD wants to open up a new question, and even a new avenue in literature to explore.

Nobody can do this without engaging in polemics in whatever fashion no matter how esoteric it is. But it is no longer esoteric, his question is now exoteric, in the public view. SRD is taking on a whole genre, along with the coat-tail critics who also make a living off of fantasy even if negatively and who do it without generating a single original thought of their own. And I think the latter is the real challenge, closed-minded critics, who have no originality in their lives but live off the creativity of others, are likely to be the most difficult to convince. What other effective method but polemics which challenges people to think for themselves by asking them the difficult questions? And of course, with answers ready-made.

I just wish SRD hadn't made his essay so difficult to find because I see it as crucial to understanding the Chrons. But it was easier to find this time now that I knew what to look for.

[deer of the dawn]

Where can one find the full text of his essay? From what I've read here, I don't agree with his definition of Fantasy and I'd like to give the whole thing a chance before I blast it to shreds. (As if.)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Where can one find the full text of his essay? From what I've read here, I don't agree with his definition of Fantasy and I'd like to give the whole thing a chance before I blast it to shreds. (As if.)

The pdf document is here

[thewormoftheworld'send]

He [Tolkien] restored the epic to English literature. Roughly a century after the epic became an impossible literary form, he made it possible to write epics again.
But - a crucial but - he did it by divorcing his work entirely
from the real world, by insisting that there is no connection between the metaphors of fantasy and the facts of the modern reality, by rejecting allegory.

I really didn't want to address very much of the article's content here, only the technique which SRD uses to solve the problem of modern fantasy. But here is one issue that struck me as wrong from the very first. It is apparent anyway that Tolkien's work was not divorced from reality, he managed to use his fantasies to comment on changes within English culture which he disagreed with: the growth of industry and civilization along with the loss of the medievalistic one-with-nature illusion he held onto nostalgically. This is seen in the allegory of Saruman, the destruction of the forests around Isengard, and the industrial appearance of the war machine he constructed. Of course, in his fantasy realm, "nature" is triumphant over "industry," the environmentalists win. Tolkien was a proto-environmentalist.

I realize that this comparison falls short of perfection as the fall of Sauron ironically heralded the Age of Men and eventually the growth of industrialization. Or was this caused by other demons who work their evil on modern men in more covert ways?

[Vraith]

He [Tolkien] restored the epic to English literature. Roughly a century after the epic became an impossible literary form, he made it possible to write epics again.
But - a crucial but - he did it by divorcing his work entirely
from the real world, by insisting that there is no connection between the metaphors of fantasy and the facts of the modern reality, by rejecting allegory.

I really didn't want to address very much of the article's content here, only the technique which SRD uses to solve the problem of modern fantasy. But here is one issue that struck me as wrong from the very first. It is apparent anyway that Tolkien's work was not divorced from reality, he managed to use his fantasies to comment on changes within English culture which he disagreed with: the growth of industry and civilization along with the loss of the medievalistic one-with-nature illusion he held onto nostalgically. This is seen in the allegory of Saruman, the destruction of the forests around Isengard, and the industrial appearance of the war machine he constructed. Of course, in his fantasy realm, "nature" is triumphant over "industry," the environmentalists win. Tolkien was a proto-environmentalist.

I realize that this comparison falls short of perfection as the fall of Sauron ironically heralded the Age of Men and eventually the growth of industrialization. Or was this caused by other demons who work their evil on modern men in more covert ways?

Naturally the books (no books) can be utterly divorced from reality, (unless the author somehow is) but it seems to me there is separation: Epic dreams cannot address mundane necessities/conflicts in any practical sense. At least that's what Tolkein meant [or wanted to mean, at least sometimes...he wasn't completely consistent]
Concerning polemics, you make a good argument and have a viewpoint that is justifiable, as far as it goes. But regardless of intentions/purposes, the work itself is something else. It may have started as an argument against one thing, but it isn't in essence an argument...in becoming novels there is a transformation. A machine built to stitch stitches, when people discuss it they only talk about how well it achieves the goal of stitching. When a painter does a portrait, one intention/purpose [sometimes only, but may be others] is to create a likeness. But when we discuss the painting, the original purpose--likeness--is almost superfluous [and the further we get from the moment of creation, the less importance likeness has]...what we discuss are various aspects of the artistic value: a transformation has occured. The same is true with these novels Examining purpose/intent may certainly add depth to understanding, but they are secondary: nobody even cares about them unless the work itself has aesthetic value.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

In other words, "a novel isn't an argument, it's a novel." I don't know that Tolkien was arguing against industrialization so much as commenting on it. Certain aspects of LoTR can be regarded as a commentary on modern civilization embedded within a novel. This has been one of the great aspects of novel-writing since the beginning, whether anybody cares about them or not. Consider for example Victor Hugo's novels, their concern with social injustice is hardly of secondary consequence.

[wayfriend]

This reveals the esoteric nature or backdrop of the Chrons. Certainly there is an entertaining story about an unusual man caught up in unusual circumstances. But he is also there because SRD wants to open up a new question, and even a new avenue in literature to explore.

I'm with you here.

Nobody can do this without engaging in polemics in whatever fashion no matter how esoteric it is.

... and now you lost me.

How can raising a question necessitate attacking someone's position?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

This reveals the esoteric nature or backdrop of the Chrons. Certainly there is an entertaining story about an unusual man caught up in unusual circumstances. But he is also there because SRD wants to open up a new question, and even a new avenue in literature to explore.

I'm with you here.

Nobody can do this without engaging in polemics in whatever fashion no matter how esoteric it is.

... and now you lost me.

How can raising a question necessitate attacking someone's position?

Because the nature of the question is designed to tweak people's basic assumptions.

[Vraith]

In other words, "a novel isn't an argument, it's a novel." I don't know that Tolkien was arguing against industrialization so much as commenting on it. Certain aspects of LoTR can be regarded as a commentary on modern civilization embedded within a novel. This has been one of the great aspects of novel-writing since the beginning, whether anybody cares about them or not. Consider for example Victor Hugo's novels, their concern with social injustice is hardly of secondary consequence.

But nobody would care about Hugo's novels if they weren't, first and foremost, good writing. And commentary is inherent in every great work of art, if only because a creator must start from what they are.
Most important, though, social injustice is part of the content of Hugo...it's on the page, you can't even talk about the work without talking about social injustice. The polemics you have been talking about with SRD are not. You can talk about and value the work in any number of rich and meaningful ways without even knowing that critics of fantasy even exist.

[wayfriend]

How can raising a question necessitate attacking someone's position?

Because the nature of the question is designed to tweak people's basic assumptions.

True. Very true. But if one leads you to question your own assumptions, but then leaves you to find your own answer, that's not polemics.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

How can raising a question necessitate attacking someone's position?

Because the nature of the question is designed to tweak people's basic assumptions.

True. Very true. But if one leads you to question your own assumptions, but then leaves you to find your own answer, that's not polemics.

Maybe that's why SRD wrote the fantasy essay.